Finally the XHP70.2 emerges!

347 posts / 0 new
Last post
luminarium iaculator
luminarium iaculator's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 07/07/2013 - 09:09
Posts: 2294
Location: X
Enderman wrote:
If I need a flashlight for work or EDC I buy a factory assembled light with enough lumens and throw.

Imho most factory assembled light sucks… And that counts even for some “premium” China brand manufacturers.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 39 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18318
Location: Amsterdam

djozz wrote:
Tom, since your ledboard was not soldered down either, I will do a re-test in my usual way without soldering the board. After the test I pulled the led off the board and back on, that may have improved the reflow a bit. Also, I will use larger stiffer rings under the screws so that the pressure is more to the center of the board.

Maybe tonight but it can be later as well.

So I re-did the test with extra emphasis on getting the mounting right. I did see some improvement in the numbers: slightly higher voltages and the maximum is now 6860 lm at 12.5A, but from there it goes slowly but steady down again.
After a complete cooldown I will try a 15A and a 20A burst but I’m afraid that I will not get to the previously reported results.

I’m not sure what to do with this, I may have a particularly low performing led, or perhaps one way or another my test method is not suitable for such high powers. I’m reluctant to post emitter test results that several others have found to be not correct.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio

djozz, it is troubling when different measurements don’t agree. Back when the XHP70 came out and you measured it there were also discrepancies between your measurements and measurements done in a flashlight at turn-on. Then you took some measurements at turn-on and that cleared up the discrepancy, right?
http://budgetlightforum.com/comment/723307#comment-723307

I’m interested to see your results.

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 15065
Location: LI NY

More goodies:

Little pricey but if you wanna play...

Hoping for 3 of these to go in my MT03.

KawiBoy1428
KawiBoy1428's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 04/11/2014 - 18:05
Posts: 4275
Location: The Motor City

Just to satisfy my curiosity I put the 70.2 P2-1A JAX X6 (18-20amps) using a L6 OP reflector against a L6 70 P2-1C (12-13amps) OP reflector and on the meter and visually (side by side) the 70.2 P2-1A “Out Performed” (stunningly) the old XHP70 P2-1C, as apples to apples as I can get! Wink

Carry on….. Thumbs Up

KB1428 “Live Life WOT

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 39 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18318
Location: Amsterdam

EasyB wrote:
djozz, it is troubling when different measurements don’t agree. Back when the XHP70 came out and you measured it there were also discrepancies between your measurements and measurements done in a flashlight at turn-on. Then you took some measurements at turn-on and that cleared up the discrepancy, right?
http://budgetlightforum.com/comment/723307#comment-723307

I’m interested to see your results.


Bare led results for going directly from 0 to 15A and 19A (the PS did not go higher) starting with the led at room temperature:

15A: start 8015, 30seconds 7400
19A: start 7780, 30seconds 6070

Also not really different from my first test, my XHP70.2 led in my test situation does not like going over 15A, warmed up 12.5A

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio

Hmm, hard to say what the source of discrepancy is. One thing is that Kawiboy and Tom measured the current with a clamp meter. Depending on the resistance of the tailswitch, the current when the light is in normal operation could easily be 1.5-2A less than with the clamp meter. So if they did the lumen and lux measurements with tailcap in place that could bring the measurements a little closer.

KawiBoy1428
KawiBoy1428's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 04/11/2014 - 18:05
Posts: 4275
Location: The Motor City

I put the 70.2 P2-3B in the SR90, I think I finally found the emitter that suits this Bowl type of a reflector well enough to finally leave it be! Big Smile

Now only battery pack will have to be rebuilt and upgraded, one day, some day? Facepalm

KB1428 “Live Life WOT

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 15065
Location: LI NY

EasyB wrote:
Hmm, hard to say what the source of discrepancy is. One thing is that Kawiboy and Tom measured the current with a clamp meter. Depending on the resistance of the tailswitch, the current when the light is in normal operation could easily be 1.5-2A less than with the clamp meter. So if they did the lumen and lux measurements with tailcap in place that could bring the measurements a little closer.

That's true for me. I could measure lumens with the tail jumpered with same wire used with the meter.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 39 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18318
Location: Amsterdam

I’m not too concerned about lumen differences, ordinary calibration differences could explain that already, what is the real worry is that Tom and Kawi found a very significant increase in output between 15 and 20 amps, and I see a clear drop.

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 15065
Location: LI NY

Across 4 measurements by KB, post #108 here, it certainly does show consistent rise in output from 15A to 20A. I should get some more data points in this range as well. I only tested at 11A and 18A here at post #94.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 39 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18318
Location: Amsterdam

I will just give up for the moment, a proper re-test would require a new $16 dollar led that takes weeks to arrive, soldering a fresh ledboard onto a 30mm copper disc and mount that on my test-rig.

In the meantime I guess that over many people combined enough knowledge is gathered on this led that a test has little to add anymore.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio
Tom E wrote:

Across 4 measurements by KB, post #108 here, it certainly does show consistent rise in output from 15A to 20A. I should get some more data points in this range as well. I only tested at 11A and 18A here at post #94.

KB mentioned his lux measurements were with bypassed tailcap, so the amp values associated with those lux measurements could be 1-4A lower, depending on the tailswitch resistance (ranging from 0.01-0.035mOhms). So the lux measurements could possibly be over 12-16A, not 15-20A. This could potentially explain a big part of the discrepancy with djozz’s measurements.

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 15065
Location: LI NY

I get higher lumens measurements with the tailcap on consistently over the bypass wire, 3 times out of 3 with 3 different sets of cells. Not by much but between 100 and 200 lumens. I use a 14 AWG bypass wire, 8" long between the batt- and the end edge of the tube.

Good switches are pretty efficient and you have a stronger ground contact in the assembled, threaded tailcap, plus a 20 AWG bypass for the spring.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio
Tom E wrote:

I get higher lumens measurements with the tailcap on consistently over the bypass wire, 3 times out of 3 with 3 different sets of cells. Not by much but between 100 and 20 lumens. I use a 14 AWG bypass wire, maybe about 8” long between the batt- and the end edge of the tube.


Good switches are pretty efficient and you have a stronger ground contact in the assembled, threaded tailcap, plus a 20 AWG bypass for the spring.

Interesting, thanks for the measurements. But they could be interpreted in different ways. It could be that you are actually getting higher current with the tailcap. Or it could be that you are getting less current with the tailcap, and the output is higher because you are in the downward slope portion of the output curve.

I just did a quick measurement of contact resistance of a 12 gauge wire pressed on the edge of a 1.5mm thick copper disk, and with just a bit of pressure it was below 1mOhm. So unless your 14 AWG wire end is unclean the contact resistance is very low. The 8” 14 AWG wire has about 1.7mOhm by itself.

I have measured bypassed-spring tailcap and switch assemblies and they have ranged from 10mOhms to 35 mOhms.

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 15065
Location: LI NY

I have solder blobs at each end of the 14 AWG wire. Dunno, could be some degradation, I've had it happen before on jumper wires - resolder, and get higher readings. This one has been used a lot.

I hear the theory but in practice, I've seen over dozens and dozens, maybe 100's of measurements where the tailcap assembly does better, pretty much every time. Granted many don't have a switch (e-switch lights with no tail switch). So maybe my wire ends are beat up. I got plenty of wire around, so maybe I'll make up a clean new 12 AWG jumper and compare.

I'm surprised the surface contact area makes no difference in the formula? With the tailcap you get the full circumference of the tube making contact even with an anodized threaded tail, while the wire has a tiny fraction of that for contact.

Update: I just cut a 10 AWG stranded coated wire (all I use is stranded), 6", soldered the ends, cleaned up the ends with isop. alcohol - same result: jumper wire has lower lumens readings every time compared to the L6 switch assembly - repeatable, went back and forth a few times. Not much of a difference but I'd say about 60 lumens.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio

The way I measured the tail cap resistance was by passing a known current from the (bypassed) spring to the point where it would make contact with the battery tube. Then I measured the voltage at these two points to find the resistance. So any contact resistance between the tail cap and battery tube would be in addition to that resistance, but I think the contact resistance would be very small.

With your updated measurements I would say there is almost certainly more current flowing when you bypass with the AWG10 wire. There is just no way there is more resistance (contact resistance included) than in the tailcap. If that is true then that means you are at or near the maximum in the output curve.

Could you try the same measurements (with tailswitch and with AWG10 bypass) with a single XPL light? In this case we would be on the upward side of the output curve, and you should see more output with the bypass. (If my understanding is correct)

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 15065
Location: LI NY

Ok, tested the 10 AWG wire across 3 different FET based lights, and again with the L6 at lower amps, about 12A. On the L6 the wire makes little difference. Have you seen an L6 switch? It's huge! Believe it's on of those 6A rated switches.

On the other lights:

  • U21 w/dedomed XPL, no tail switch: wire does slightly better (~7 lumens out of 1,600)
  • Warsun X60 w/XPL2, tail switch: wire does much better (~190 lumens out of ~2,000)
  • Lumintop SD26 w/XPL2, no tail switch: wire does slightly better (~30 lumens out of ~2,100)
  • L6 using EVVA cells, about 12A @tail: it's about a draw over 3 trial tests, all within 1% one way or the other (~7,300 lumens)

So for a bad switch, like the X60, can be a big difference. The L6 has one of the best switches we have available to us though.

All the more reason to get rid of the tail switch smile. If I get around to upgrading the X60, I'll look at eliminating the tail switch - don't need it with NarsilM.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 37 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 9499
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
Tom E wrote:

So for a bad switch, like the X60, can be a big difference. The L6 has one of the best switches we have available to us though.


All the more reason to get rid of the tail switch smile. If I get around to upgrading the X60, I’ll look at eliminating the tail switch – don’t need it with NarsilM.

You can simply bypass the switch like we do the springs. Or just bypass the spring directly to the outgoing side of the switch.

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 15065
Location: LI NY

I modded a couple X60's for BLFers, but not sure what I did - probably swapped out the switch - that's what I usually do when I see a significant drop from it. My own stuff though always gets lowest priority - I never seem to get back to my own to improve it. 

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

EasyB wrote:

KB mentioned his lux measurements were with bypassed tailcap, so the amp values associated with those lux measurements could be 1-4A lower, depending on the tailswitch resistance (ranging from 0.01-0.035mOhms). So the lux measurements could possibly be over 12-16A, not 15-20A. This could potentially explain a big part of the discrepancy with djozz’s measurements.

I don’t think a tail switch would matter though, current is the same everywhere in a circuit, if he measures 20A at the switch then he would measure 20A at the LED too.
It is the voltage that changes between components in series.
EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio

Thanks for doing the measurements, Tom.

Enderman wrote:
EasyB wrote:
KB mentioned his lux measurements were with bypassed tailcap, so the amp values associated with those lux measurements could be 1-4A lower, depending on the tailswitch resistance (ranging from 0.01-0.035mOhms). So the lux measurements could possibly be over 12-16A, not 15-20A. This could potentially explain a big part of the discrepancy with djozz’s measurements.
I don’t think a tail switch would matter though, current is the same everywhere in a circuit, if he measures 20A at the switch then he would measure 20A at the LED too. It is the voltage that changes between components in series.

The issue is that the circuit is altered when the current is measured. The tailcap and switch are removed and replaced with the current meter/shunt.

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

EasyB wrote:

The issue is that the circuit is altered when the current is measured. The tailcap and switch are removed and replaced with the current meter/shunt.

You’re right, that’s why I use a clamp meter, not sure what those guys used to measure.

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 15065
Location: LI NY

clamp meter - UT210E

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 12941
Location: Houston Texas

EasyB wrote:
The issue is that the circuit is altered when the current is measured. The tailcap and switch are removed and replaced with the current meter/shunt.

I think all the serious testers here use clamp meters (UT210E mostly) and wire. Anyone still running the circuit through a multimeter should know that they will never get accurate results (above a few amps at least).

Texas Ace Lumen Tube and JoshK Sphere calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links. I'm still around, just not reading many new threads.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio
JasonWW wrote:
EasyB wrote:
The issue is that the circuit is altered when the current is measured. The tailcap and switch are removed and replaced with the current meter/shunt.
I think all the serious testers here use clamp meters (UT210E mostly) and wire. Anyone still running the circuit through a multimeter should know that they will never get accurate results (above a few amps at least).

The issue I’ve been talking about here is that the bypass used with the clamp meter can have less resistance than the tailcap/switch, so the current measurement can be inflated relative to what will actually flow with the tail cap in place. This is the opposite effect of what we see when people use ammeters with high resistance leads.

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 12941
Location: Houston Texas
EasyB wrote:
JasonWW wrote:
EasyB wrote:
The issue is that the circuit is altered when the current is measured. The tailcap and switch are removed and replaced with the current meter/shunt.
I think all the serious testers here use clamp meters (UT210E mostly) and wire. Anyone still running the circuit through a multimeter should know that they will never get accurate results (above a few amps at least).

The issue I’ve been talking about here is that the bypass used with the clamp meter can have less resistance than the tailcap/switch, so the current measurement can be inflated relative to what will actually flow with the tail cap in place. This is the opposite effect of what we see when people use ammeters with high resistance leads.


Yes and this is accepted.

Just like people using homemade “lumen tubes” as opposed to calibrated light spheres. You can only get so much accuracy because we are hobbiests, not scientists with a lab full of expensive testing gear.

So when it comes to factoring in the resistance of the rear spring and switch, I say as long as the spring has a bypass wire on it, a wire and clamp meter should not inflate the output by very much if at all. Maybe a tiny bit. This is the best we can do as hobbiests.

If you want to take it to the next level you’ll need to buy an assortment of common switches and springs and test equipment to put various loads through them and measure the output at various levels of spring compression and chart the resistance levels as more current is applied. You may also have to account for switch wear due the contacts creating arcs every time they touch and over time adding more resistance.

I think that is a bit overkill.

Texas Ace Lumen Tube and JoshK Sphere calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links. I'm still around, just not reading many new threads.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio

The context here is just that I was trying to identify any factors that might contribute to discrepancies between the output/current trends observed by djozz and those observed by the couple users who have measured the XHP70.2 in flashlights.

In this case it looks like the L6 switch is low resistance and so it is probably not the source of a big difference.

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

EasyB wrote:

The issue I’ve been talking about here is that the bypass used with the clamp meter can have less resistance than the tailcap/switch, so the current measurement can be inflated relative to what will actually flow with the tail cap in place. This is the opposite effect of what we see when people use ammeters with high resistance leads.

I don’t think that is a concern here, the point is that those guys did their measurements and found an increase in output from 15 to 20 amps while DJozz did not.
So whether the current is the same with a switch or not is not really relevant to the fact that there was an increase from 15 to 20A.

UNLESS they measured current and measured intensity at different times, which honestly wouldn’t make much sense.
Then you’re right, if they measured the intensity with the flashlight in normal condition and then used a bypass for measuring current then there could definitely be a difference in performance due to current.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio

Enderman wrote:

UNLESS they measured current and measured intensity at different times, which honestly wouldn’t make much sense.
Then you’re right, if they measured the intensity with the flashlight in normal condition and then used a bypass for measuring current then there could definitely be a difference in performance due to current.

Yes, this is what happened, as I noted when I first talked about this issue on the previous page.

Pages